Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing ranking behavior (title matches first), the return shape (up to three section snippets, not full text), and the pay-per-call cost model (0.01 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, errors free). These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each carrying a distinct load: what is searched, how results are ranked and shaped, and what it costs. Zero filler and the core purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent the result shape (up to three matching section snippets, not full text) and ranking. Combined with the fully covered input schema and clear annotations, nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the note that q can be omitted to list documents. The description's 'optionally by type and ministry' merely restates the schema and adds no new syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb (search) and resource (current Norwegian laws and central regulations from Lovdata), plus the matching surfaces (title words or section text). This clearly distinguishes it from fetch-style siblings like get_law and get_law_section.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Establishes the discovery context (search by words, optional type/ministry narrowing) and contrasts with the siblings by noting results carry only up to three matching section snippets, not full text. It stops short of explicitly naming get_law/get_law_section as the follow-up for full text, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.